Quote:I can understand what you are saying, but I chose to use logic and reasoning more effectively than what you are doing because your argument is meaningless due to it being a bonafide argument from silence where no abductive reasoning is applied.

The historical record is also silent about a Martian invasion of Ohio in 1838, Queen Elizabeth I holding a sex romp in Westminster Abbey in 1599, and Martin Luther's homosexual tendencies. That does not make any of them real. An argument from silence is as valid as someone making an argument based on mythology. Robin Hood. King Arthur. William Tell. Beowulf. Hercules. El Dorado.

If I assert that there was a European city on the site where Pittsburgh, Pa now stands and that this city existed in the 14th century it would be easy to dig down to 14th century levels and see. The fact that no such city exists would be evidence that my claim was total bullshit. The "silence" would be deafening..

When xtians claim that there was a real jesus and we dig down to see what the evidence for those claims is, we find nothing. When they are challenged they trot out the same old gospel shit and say "see?" Sorry. It is not convincing.

(16-01-2014 07:05 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Wow...lots posted here in the interim but I have to address this.

Quote:I can understand what you are saying, but I chose to use logic and reasoning more effectively than what you are doing because your argument is meaningless due to it being a bonafide argument from silence where no abductive reasoning is applied.

The historical record is also silent about a Martian invasion of Ohio in 1838, Queen Elizabeth I holding a sex romp in Westminster Abbey in 1599, and Martin Luther's homosexual tendencies. That does not make any of them real. An argument from silence is as valid as someone making an argument based on mythology. Robin Hood. King Arthur. William Tell. Beowulf. Hercules. El Dorado.

If I assert that there was a European city on the site where Pittsburgh, Pa now stands and that this city existed in the 14th century it would be easy to dig down to 14th century levels and see. The fact that no such city exists would be evidence that my claim was total bullshit. The "silence" would be deafening..

When xtians claim that there was a real jesus and we dig down to see what the evidence for those claims is, we find nothing. When they are challenged they trot out the same old gospel shit and say "see?" Sorry. It is not convincing.

An argument from silence can only be, at best, a very weak valid argument IF and only IF you can provide actual evidence to support it via abductive reasoning.

You have provided no abductive reasoning.

Your argument is therefore fallacious.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.

(16-01-2014 07:05 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Wow...lots posted here in the interim but I have to address this.

The historical record is also silent about a Martian invasion of Ohio in 1838, Queen Elizabeth I holding a sex romp in Westminster Abbey in 1599, and Martin Luther's homosexual tendencies. That does not make any of them real. An argument from silence is as valid as someone making an argument based on mythology. Robin Hood. King Arthur. William Tell. Beowulf. Hercules. El Dorado.

If I assert that there was a European city on the site where Pittsburgh, Pa now stands and that this city existed in the 14th century it would be easy to dig down to 14th century levels and see. The fact that no such city exists would be evidence that my claim was total bullshit. The "silence" would be deafening..

When xtians claim that there was a real jesus and we dig down to see what the evidence for those claims is, we find nothing. When they are challenged they trot out the same old gospel shit and say "see?" Sorry. It is not convincing.

An argument from silence can only be, at best, a very weak valid argument IF and only IF you can provide actual evidence to support it via abductive reasoning.

You have provided no abductive reasoning.

Your argument is therefore fallacious.

The absence of evidence that should be there is quite a strong argument.

The argument is not fallacious.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(16-01-2014 07:09 PM)Free Wrote: An argument from silence can only be, at best, a very weak valid argument IF and only IF you can provide actual evidence to support it via abductive reasoning.

You have provided no abductive reasoning.

Your argument is therefore fallacious.

The absence of evidence that should be there is quite a strong argument.

The argument is not fallacious.

That's what abductive reasoning is for. For example, if:

1. Pliny the Elder lived in Jerusalem as an adult during the purported time of Jesus,
2. Recorded events concerning the Jews during that time,
3. But failed to write anything about Jesus ...

Then yes, you would have a case to support an argument from silence because reasonable conditions had been met.

However, since neither Pliny nor Philo meet any reasonable conditions, then the argument is fallacious. Their lack of any mention of Jesus is no different than any other writer who lived during that time in any land, and who also did not mention Jesus in their works. Therefore, it is just as unreasonable to expect Pliny and Philo to write anything about Jesus as it is to expect any of the multitude of other 1st century writers to write anything about him.

Hence, that is precisely why the argument from silence regarding Philo and Pliny the Elder is fallacious in this case.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.

I've taken the criticism of Atwill's theory from people here on board.

I've gone back and read the (updated) version of his book again.

I've decided to strengthen my discussion of his arguments by adding some more of his evidence for his theory.

So here, for everyone's interest, is this additional evidence...

Luke has Jesus describing his mission.
“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. (Luke 12;51-52, KJV.) Josephus describes how the Jewish factions inside Jerusalem led by John and Simon fought against each other.

“These followers of John also did now seize upon this inner temple, and upon all the warlike engines therein, and then ventured to oppose Simon. And thus that sedition, which had been divided into three factions, was now reduced to two.” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 5, 3, 104-105.)

The parallel “division” themes are further demonstrated by comparing the following two passages.
“But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. (Luke 11:17-20, KJV.)

“Now when hitherto the several parties in the city had been dashing one against another perpetually, this foreign war now suddenly come upon them, after a violent manner, put the first stop to their contentions one against another. And as the seditious now saw, with astonishment the Romans pitching three several camps, they began to think of an aukward sort of concord: and said one to another, “What do we here? and what do we mean, when we suffer three fortified walls to be built, to coop us in, that we shall not be able to breathe freely.” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 5, 2, 71-73.) The Jews, divided amongst themselves, had the “kingdom of God” imposed on them.

Titus, having surrounded Jerusalem, tried to breach the walls by building a tower:
“Titus went round the city on the outside with some chosen horsemen, and looked about for a proper place where he might make an impression upon the walls; but as he was in doubt where he could possibly make an attack on any side, (for the place was no way accessible where the valleys were, and on the other side the first wall appeared too strong to be shaken by the engines,) he thereupon thought it best to make his assault upon the monument of John the high priest; for there it was that the first fortification was lower, and the second was not joined to it, the builders neglecting to build strong where the new city was not much inhabited; here also was an easy passage to the third wall, through which he thought to take the upper city, and, through the tower of Antonia ...” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 5, 6, 258.) This tower later collapsed before it was finished when the foundations fell through. Jesus said

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.” (Luke 14:28-32, KJV.) During the war Titus, the Roman “king” (unsuccessfully) tried to negotiate a Jewish surrender on a number of occasions.

Jesus makes a triumphant entry into Jerusalem:
“And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. (Luke 19:37-42, KJV.) Titus, the Roman “king” had his entry into Jerusalem preceded by a barrage of stones flung by “engines.” The Jews standing on the walls “cried out” to warn their fellows of flying stones:
“... accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, THE SON COMETH so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm. But the Romans contrived how to prevent that by blacking the stone, who then could aim at them with success, when the stone was not discerned beforehand, as it had been till then; and so they destroyed many of them at one blow. (Josephus, Wars of the Jews 5, 6, 272-273.) Amazingly, Josephus even (accidentally?) writes “son” instead of “stone!”

In the version of Jesus' capture recounted in Mark’s Gospel Jesus walks from the Mount of Olives, which is just outside Jerusalem's eastern edge, northward to Gethsemane, from where he went "forward a little" to the northeastern corner of the city. There is a character described as a naked "certain young man" who escaped the attackers:

“And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives…And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray…And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him…And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked. And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.” (Mark 14:26, 32, 35, 51-53, KJV.) Wars of the Jews placed Titus in the same garden for his encounter with a band of armed men. Josephus describes Titus as travelling from the tower of Psephinus, which marked the city's northwestern corner, toward the monument of Queen Helena, along Jerusalem's northern border from west to east. He makes the reader aware that Titus was "naked," (figuratively speaking) as he was wearing no armor, to create a satirical parallel to the "naked young man" who escapes from the garden in Mark.

“Now, so long as he rode along the straight road which led to the wall of the city, nobody appeared out of the gates; but when he went out of that road, and declined towards the tower Psephinus, and led the band of horsemen obliquely, an immense number of the Jews leaped out suddenly at the towers called the "Women's Towers," through that gate which was over against the monuments of queen Helena, and intercepted his horse; and standing directly opposite to those that still ran along the road, hindered them from joining those that had declined out of it. They intercepted Titus also, with a few others. Now it was here impossible for him to go forward, because all the places had trenches dug in them from the wall, to preserve the gardens round about, and were full of gardens obliquely situated, and of many hedges; and to return back to his own men, he saw it was also impossible, by reason of the multitude of the enemies that lay between them; many of whom did not so much as know that the king was in any danger, but supposed him still among them. So he perceived that his preservation must be wholly owing to his own courage, and turned his horse about, and cried out aloud to those that were about him to follow him, and ran with violence into the midst of his enemies, in order to force his way through them to his own men. And hence we may principally learn, that both the success of wars, and the dangers that kings are in, are under the providence of God; for while such a number of darts were thrown at Titus, when he had neither his head-piece on, nor his breastplate, (for, as I told you, he went out not to fight, but to view the city,) none of them touched his body, but went aside without hurting him; as if all of them missed him on purpose, and only made a noise as they passed by him. (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 5, 2, 54-61.) Thus, the Gospels and Josephus each describe assaults that occur in gardens near the Mount of Olives. Each assault contains a "naked" person who escapes and another who is captured. The point of the parallels is to separate the identities of the two "kings," Jesus and Titus - in other words, to separate the "king" who lives from the one who is crucified. Titus is actually described as a king when, in fact he is only the son of the emperor. This has caught the attention of scholars, who have wondered why Josephus would have made such an obvious error. Josephus did not make a mistake, but is commenting as to which "king" enjoys God's favor - Jesus, the king of the Jews or Titus, the "king" of the Romans.

(17-01-2014 09:43 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote: “... accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, THE SON COMETH so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm. But the Romans contrived how to prevent that by blacking the stone, who then could aim at them with success, when the stone was not discerned beforehand, as it had been till then; and so they destroyed many of them at one blow. (Josephus, Wars of the Jews 5, 6, 272-273.) Amazingly, Josephus even (accidentally?) writes “son” instead of “stone!”

So this is the quality of your scholarship? The Jewish War was originally written in Greek and the Greek word for stone (πέτρα) is completely different to Greek word for son (υἱός). Since Josephus did not write in English the similarity between son and stone is irrelevant. The words πέτρα and υἱός don't sound the same or similar and they have no letters in common so it is unlikely that someone that wanted to write πέτρα instead wrote υἱός.

Here is the transcription of the original Greek:

Furthermore, if you take the phrase “ὁ υἱὸς ἔρχεται.” and replace υἱός with πέτρα the resulting sentence is grammatically incorrect. So the idea that Josephus actually meant stone but accidently wrote son is entirely implausible.

(17-01-2014 09:43 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote: “... accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, THE SON COMETH so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm. But the Romans contrived how to prevent that by blacking the stone, who then could aim at them with success, when the stone was not discerned beforehand, as it had been till then; and so they destroyed many of them at one blow. (Josephus, Wars of the Jews 5, 6, 272-273.) Amazingly, Josephus even (accidentally?) writes “son” instead of “stone!”

So this is the quality of your scholarship? The Jewish War was originally written in Greek and the Greek word for stone (πέτρα) is completely different to Greek word for son (υἱός). Since Josephus did not write in English the similarity between son and stone is irrelevant. The words πέτρα and υἱός don't sound the same or similar and they have no letters in common so it is unlikely that someone that wanted to write πέτρα instead wrote υἱός.

Here is the transcription of the original Greek:

Furthermore, if you take the phrase “ὁ υἱὸς ἔρχεται.” and replace υἱός with πέτρα the resulting sentence is grammatically incorrect. So the idea that Josephus actually meant stone but accidently wrote son is entirely implausible.

Can you read Koine Greek?

No, I can't read Greek. Never said I could.

Nor is this a discussion about my credibility....but about an interesting theory.

I never said there was a similarity between stone and son...you assumed I implied it.

The fact remains, if a stone is hurtling towards your mates, you don't cry out "look out for the son" It's a strange thing to have written. The "son" of God (Jesus) was coming into Jerusalem in the gospels.